Matt C. (Scruffdog) wrote:and to think there may even be another solar system out there somewhere with a planet that can support life with beings trying to answer the same fawking question................

That made me LOL


-Brandon

The Bible describes the days of creation as "periods of light seperated by dark" There is no definate time element in that description. Who knows how long it was, but it was NOT 24hours, we know that for sure as the "day" came way before the "Earth"


The Bible does not say how old the Earth is. There is no contadiction there either.

PAX

BigJ:

If we hold E=mC² as true, then matter and energy are different properties of the same "stuff". Hence why energy happens at all.

And in a closed system, no matter/energy is ever "wasted"--it goes to another system. Consider it like an air conditioner: It cooles down the inside of your home, but warms up the outside--it's just that the size of the atmosphere is so LARGE in comparison toa home that the effect is not noticible unless you're standing next to the heat exchanger.

Even "energy lost through friction as heat" doesn't go away--the heat gets transferred to the air, or whatever object is experiencing it--AND, if we consider quantum particles as matter, (like, light--as in the photon), then heat is energy that does create matter, since hot objects emit infrared light, and infrared light is composed of photon.

As such, I personally believe that it is fully possible that in the cyclic model of the universe, there will still be all of the energy into each "big bang" because really, where would that energy go? The only place it can go is into another state--like matter. It can't go elsewhere because if we consider the universe as "all that is", then nothing can enter and nothing cabn leave--even if "all that is" is infinite.

After all, it could be look like this: The energy it takes to drive your car is more than the whp--since the car also has to deform your tuires as they rde on the road, this deformation energy is chnaged to heat as friction, which is lost to the air and the asphalt. This heat energy can then, say, evaporate a puddle of water, which needs energy to change from liquid to gas, which then loses its energy as it condenses in the storm cloud, causing a thermal inversion that creaters a thunderstorm, which drives the wind, as the thermal charachteristics create hot and cold, and high and low pressures, this then drives a wind turine to produce electricity, which is used by you typing on the computer, which through "waste" energy of your monitor and cpu, heats up your house, which uses a heat pump to pump excess heat to the outside of your home...etc. etc.

The energy is never "lost" it just changes. Even energy "lost" to the earth goes somewhere else and is used there. the only "loss" is if the energy goes outsdie of the system you're looking at. If the universe is all of the systems in a closed system in wheish there are no outside systems, or no systems bigger (infinity), then everything must stay inside of it.

my $.02.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

HERE is a link to a page with quotes from the bible stating that the earth is flat, doesn't move and that the sun moves around the earth. They may have thought the earth was round and flat, but definitely not spherical. The writers of the bible, and apparently god, also thought that heaven was in the clouds and that you could build a tower tall enough to reach it. Of course, once we found this to be false it was not seen as literal anymore. The bible does seem to support evolution to some extent, it says that god let "the earth bring forth" plants and animal. Notice that it does not say that he made them directly.

If the "god days" are not 24 hours long then you are right, it would be imposable to determine the age of the universe according to the bible. In the 1650's a well known bishop named James Ussher calculated that the earth was created in 4004 B.C. by studying the genealogies in the old testament. So if he mistakenly thought that the "god days" were regular days then this still means that the last day finished around 4004 B.C.

God created light before the sun and stars. - I always thought that light came from the sun, hmm.

Plants were made before the sun. - If this was a long "god day" they would have died.

The sun AND the moon are light. - The moon is not really alight, merely a reflector.

There is a firmament to separate the waters above(in space) from the waters below(on earth), this also holds the stars.

God opens the windows of heaven to make it rain. I guess this is were that water in heaven comes in handy.

I know you don't agree with these folks but a good place to find what some people see as discrepancies or bad things written in the bible is the skeptics annotated bible or this offensively named site.

BTW: I would have posted earlier but I got banned


_________________________________________________________________
-There is no such thing as objective journalism, there never was.
-The government is best which governs least.
-The forefathers were not necessarily right.
-Religion breeds self-righteousness.
-Ignoring problems rarely fixes them.
-All men are CREATED equal.
-We DO legislate morality.
-Justice does not exist.
-Rely only on yourself.
-Legalize marihuana.
-Gun control kills!

The act of creating plants may have just been the seeds, or the DNA, who knows. Please don't pretend hat you know the mechanisms God used in his act of creation.

The 4 corners of the Earth and the Ends of the Eart does not imply the Earth is plat and those expressions have existed as figures of speach in every culture on the planet. Why are they not figurative to you when you read Biblical passages?

Like I said, it's a great book, but you have to know how to read it.

Usher was alone, and wrong.

PAX

Hahahaha wrote:The act of creating plants may have just been the seeds, or the DNA, who knows. Please don't pretend hat you know the mechanisms God used in his act of creation.

Your correct, I most certainly don't. If you do not take any part of the bible literally then my argument means nothing. If you do take some parts of the bible literally then how do you decide which ones weren't meant literally? What about the creation of light before the sun? What about the window above earth that god opens to let the water from space rain down? I'm sure these are all non-literal statements. What about the resurrection or immaculate conception? Oh no, thats literal because it's more believable. My opinion is that they are all unbelievable and meant literally.

Hahahaha wrote:The 4 corners of the Earth and the Ends of the Eart does not imply the Earth is plat and those expressions have existed as figures of speach in every culture on the planet. Why are they not figurative to you when you read Biblical passages?

I understand that they are now figures of speech, but I believe that at one time they were believed. Just like the belief that heaven is in the clouds and hell is in the center of the earth. This is what is written in the bible, these aren't my words. The people back then didn't know any better so this is the kind of things they believed. Do you believe any of the things I listed were meant to be taken literally? Do you think that ancient people took them literally? Think about that last question for awhile and remember that these were very scientifically limited people.

Hahahaha wrote:Like I said, it's a great book, but you have to know how to read it.

Usher was alone, and wrong.

There is no doubt that the bible is a great book, I enjoy it myself. This would be the first book that I have read where you get to decide what the author means by taking his words out of context and decide which parts to take literally. If you read a non-religious book written around the same time and by the same ignorant people as the bible and it stated that snakes eat sand would that be literal? I guess the bottom line is how much liberty can you take to change the meaning of the original text before it is no longer what the author intended. This is also a unique book because people look for evidence to support it instead of to check the facts. Also, when someone brings up a fact to disprove the claims in the book people rush to change what the words "really" meant. If you had no reason to disbelieve that heaven was in the sky and the bible said it was, would you? I think so.


_________________________________________________________________
-There is no such thing as objective journalism, there never was.
-The government is best which governs least.
-The forefathers were not necessarily right.
-Religion breeds self-righteousness.
-Ignoring problems rarely fixes them.
-All men are CREATED equal.
-We DO legislate morality.
-Justice does not exist.
-Rely only on yourself.
-Legalize marihuana.
-Gun control kills!

^^^ehh, i think "The 500 hats of Bartholomew Cubbins" was better.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

So here's where the thread ends.


_________________________________________________________________
-There is no such thing as objective journalism, there never was.
-The government is best which governs least.
-The forefathers were not necessarily right.
-Religion breeds self-righteousness.
-Ignoring problems rarely fixes them.
-All men are CREATED equal.
-We DO legislate morality.
-Justice does not exist.
-Rely only on yourself.
-Legalize marihuana.
-Gun control kills!

Hahahaha wrote:The Pope recognises evolution.

In 230AD St. Athanasius wrote about "created evolution"

The only religious people who deny evolution live in North America.

Creationism is terribly misunderstood here and it is a localised phenomina.

There is no Biblical evedence to support the "poof" there it is "creationists"

One more time.. The Bible supports a "created evolution"ary model, the church supports created evolution. The pope supports Created evolution, and it's not a new Idea, it's centuries old. Reaffirmed by St. Thomas Aquinas, and again by JPII.

Please give me a break, there is no argument between the church and good solid science. Evolution cannot be denied, only the degree and depth of that evolution is up for debate. Life from nothing is not supported.

As Athanasius put it "God planted the seeds of life" and allowed it to mature.

The whole argument is moot.

PAX

I couldn't have said it better. Obviously, evolution is around us everywhere we look. Animals do it to survive in their surroundings as well as do many other organisms. But as PAX said, the scale of evolution being taught is what goes blatantly against the christian belief of Creationism. Personally, the thought of coming from a pile of primordial goo to what I am today just doesn't make sense.

How could beings that are alive the way we are, have feelings the way we do, the complexity, the superiority over everything else on this planet....just begin from a pile of slime and chemicals? Even the Bible says that "humans were created to have domain over every living thing on this planet". And can anyone argue that we don't have that characteristic to our human race? No, logically no.

Pax you are right about that you can't really argue this point much farther because either you believe it or you don't. But I give you props on stating your answer so well. Late

ShiftyCav wrote:thats probably the dumbest thing i have ever heard. you should take that serpentine belt and wrap it around your neck.

Quote:

How could beings that are alive the way we are, have feelings the way we do, the complexity, the superiority over everything else on this planet....just begin from a pile of slime and chemicals? Even the Bible says that "humans were created to have domain over every living thing on this planet". And can anyone argue that we don't have that characteristic to our human race? No, logically no.

We are fairly far-removed from that pile of chemicals on an evolutionary time-scale. Humans were not the masters of their domain from the moment of their appearance. No matter if we are talking about "Lucy", Homo erectus, or even H. sapiens, we were just another item on the menu when we first appeared on Earth. We were subordinant to the Earth for thousands of years despite our upright gait and big brains. Only when our ancestors began agriculture, domestication, and made fire did we begin to raise ourselves above the Earth and all of its animals. You can say our dominance over everything nowadays is simply due to our technology and greed... we take more than we give now and we can be considered "advanced parasites" I wouldn't refer to us as a "superior" species... put the average urban Joe in the middle of the jungle and he would die pretty quickly! We are dependent on our technology more and more

jump in the water with a shark or jump in front of a bear and tell me wether you have domain over that creature.


and thinking that emotions and thought process we have as humans is so complex and unique that God had to have created it himself, then how do you explain the emotions and thoughts of: dolphins, dogs, pigs, horses. all of which are highly intelligent.

humans were not created with all of these complexities. we evolved in a manner that allowed for these complexities to form and wether God the the thing that made that possible or not it really doesnt matter. it was still a matter of natural evolution to become what we are today.




Creative Draft Art Media Forums

I think it's incredibly stupid, ignorant, or arrogant to even think that we have any dominance.

If you think we have dominance, just ask people in New Orleans, Sumatra, or any other place that has had a natural disaster if they feel like the dominant specie on the planet this week.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

i dont even feel like the dominant species on a daily basis. hornets and spiders kick my ass.






Creative Draft Art Media Forums

Ok ok I'll give you a point for the stepping in front of a bear or whatnot. I actually had a laugh for that one. But face it. We are the dominant species on this planet. To step in front of a bear that uses what it has and understands (claws, teeth, etc characteristics of its being) while all we need is an invention of our techonology ( a gun). We are already dominant. Our intelligence and technology is part of our being, part of the reason we are a special group.

And that Hurricane comment? That was pointless. A hurricane is a natural disaster. How does that even affect at all what the dominant species is? An earthquake happens...how does that affect how the human race is still not the dominant species across the globe? That would just be a weak point. Ok ok if you can tell me one species that pretty much owns us, then I'm wrong.

And while dolphins and horses as well as chimpanzees are very intelligent, they are not as intelligent as we are. Otherwise wouldn't we be on their Natural Geographic more than likely?

ShiftyCav wrote:thats probably the dumbest thing i have ever heard. you should take that serpentine belt and wrap it around your neck.

any current living animal could potentially oust us. they would just need sufficient evolutionary time and environment to develop, as we had.

the only reason why we are above most other species on intelligence is because we happened to evolve in a different and or faster way than they did.





Creative Draft Art Media Forums

Humans are *temporarily* the dominant species on the planet. We have the best communication skills and use of tools. We're also the best at modifying our environment to suit our needs.

We will cease to be dominant if:
* Insects organize better and go on the offensive.
* Primates learn how to use firearms. What's scarier than an 800 pound gorilla with a shotgun?
* Nuclear war - then cockroaches rule the world and future species will evolve from them.
* The earth's climate shifts for whatever reason and becomes too hot/cold to support human existance
* A virus wipes us out

.



John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

or if sewage disposal and treatment stopped working.

the human race would eb incapable of figuring out how to live without contaminating our elves to the point of extinction with our own waste. i dotn know abotu you all, but that doesnt seem all that advanced.




Creative Draft Art Media Forums

I'm not saying all these "what ifs". That has no function whatsoever. Thats like saying "what if" cats learn to make nuclear bombs and how to detonate them. That's retarded. The only legitamate argument I heard was Wilken's virus idea. And even there, we are still the dominant species until a virus evolves nasty enough to wipe us all out. And like I said before, there is evolution on a small scale. As viruses evolve, then so will our technology. For example look at the AIDS virus. Look how far our techonology has come since it reared its ugly head. Sure it is still killing millions of people, but we are coming closer. Which is my point. Until something on this planet becomes better communicated, more intelligent.....or we destroy ourselves with our own arms, the human race is still the most dominant species on this planet. Period.

If we are not the dominant species as O'flaherty says, then how come I don't see insects killing us off everyday, or see orangutans telling us what to do?

Oh and Wilken? There are 800 lb gorillas already with firearms....they're called the mobsters and Italian mafia henchmen lol. And you're right..I won't mess with that.

ShiftyCav wrote:thats probably the dumbest thing i have ever heard. you should take that serpentine belt and wrap it around your neck.

Jace Evo2 wrote:I'm not saying all these "what ifs". That has no function whatsoever. Thats like saying "what if" cats learn to make nuclear bombs and how to detonate them. That's retarded. The only legitamate argument I heard was Wilken's virus idea. And even there, we are still the dominant species until a virus evolves nasty enough to wipe us all out. And like I said before, there is evolution on a small scale. As viruses evolve, then so will our technology. For example look at the AIDS virus. Look how far our techonology has come since it reared its ugly head. Sure it is still killing millions of people, but we are coming closer. Which is my point. Until something on this planet becomes better communicated, more intelligent.....or we destroy ourselves with our own arms, the human race is still the most dominant species on this planet. Period.

We can't kill the AIDS virus, we can only control the symptoms. Science has never been able to kill a virus inside the human body.

Jace Evo2 wrote:If we are not the dominant species as O'flaherty says, then how come I don't see insects killing us off everyday, or see orangutans telling us what to do?

IF bees decided to kill you, you'd be dead. You may survive 1 sting or 10, but if enough bees sting you, you will die. That's why I said insects could become the dominant species if they had better communication. Right now they don't plan future attacks, but if 1 hive could ask another hive for reinforcements to overthrow a house, they'd have that house.

Jace Evo2 wrote:Oh and Wilken? There are 800 lb gorillas already with firearms....they're called the mobsters and Italian mafia henchmen lol. And you're right..I won't mess with that.

Tread lightly here, my Grandparents are Italian immagrants... I know a guy who know some guys....


.




John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

do you honestly think you can take on a gorrilla, shark or grizzly?

point proven.






Creative Draft Art Media Forums

Nathaniel O'Flaherty wrote:do you honestly think you can take on a gorrilla, shark or grizzly?

point proven.

Gorillas are bigger, stronger, faster and have sharper teeth than humans.
Sharks are bigger, stronger, faster and have sharper teeth than humans.
Grizzlies are bigger, stronger, faster and have sharper teeth than humans.

NONE of them would survive against bullets, therefore HUMANS would win.

Now if you're speaking of a person with no pre-made weapons, then it would depend on timing. If you put a person in the jungle with nothing but shoes and he was attacked by a gorilla right away, he's dead. HOWEVER, since humans have a greater intelligence than the gorilla, if he has time to make weapons he can beat the gorilla. We are the dominant species because of our capability for intelligent thought, not because of our physical size.

.




John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

Jace Evo2 wrote:Oh and Wilken? There are 800 lb gorillas already with firearms....they're called the mobsters and Italian mafia henchmen lol. And you're right..I won't mess with that.

Tread lightly here, my Grandparents are Italian immagrants... I know a guy who know some guys....


.

Haha it's all good. I'm Italian, hence the good natured joke.

ShiftyCav wrote:thats probably the dumbest thing i have ever heard. you should take that serpentine belt and wrap it around your neck.

Jace Evo2 wrote:Haha it's all good. I'm Italian, hence the good natured joke.

Che ne dici di... mi dispiace.


.


John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

Funky Bottoms (Event) wrote:so the question to anyone, but more specifically people who chose not to believe in EVOLUTION and not the one Batista, HHH, Ric Flair and Orton were a part of....)

I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?

Bastardking3000 wrote:

Funky Bottoms (Event) wrote:so the question to anyone, but more specifically people who chose not to believe in EVOLUTION and not the one Batista, HHH, Ric Flair and Orton were a part of....)

oops... didn't mean to post just that lol. In any case... The fact that Rick Flair is still wrestling proves either that...
1. God does not exist.
or
2. God does exist, has an odd sense of humor, and is probably a Rick Flair fan. In that case I feel God has no taste in professional wrestlers (Although I quit watching that stuff somewhere in my teenage years).

Jeremy Knox wrote:Actually, here's a little bit of particle physics info... "creation" is completely impossible. Nothing in the universe has ever been created or destroyed. Nothing.

You burn down a house, the house is still there, it's been transformed into soot and ash and 0.8 micron sized particles. It's not gone, just in another form. The whole "Big Bang" theory is being seen as less and less scientific as time goes on. A huge explosion created matter? HOW?????? Explain the mechanics of that. No such thing is possible in the universe.

Jeremy Knox wrote:[Energy isn't matter, energy is caused by matter like when you make a wave in water by moving your arm in it. It's not creation.

The universe has no boundaries. There isn't a finite amount of matter because the universe is infinite. It never ends. It just goes on forever. Just like it has no age and no time. What's going on now is just a neverending cycle of one thing being transformed into another.

Funny that you say on one hand that matter cannot be created(which is true), and yet you go to say that matter is infinite... Major contradiction there.

ME wrote:Actually, here's a bit of particle physics info... for you Jeremy

ENERGY(by all common definitions and in any form that we can directly use) IS MATTER. It is composed of sub-atomic particle just like everything commonly considered matter, it is simply in another form.

Although for some other "forms" of energy(the kind we cannot DIRECTLY harness) - magnetism and gravity for example - we have yet to determine what they are made of - if they are even "made of anything" at all - and how/why they do what they do. We know they exist and we know what they do, but that is about it.

Electricity(for a super-common example of energy) is only the result of electrons moving in an attempt to correct an imbalance - for example. But how do those electrons know there is an imbalance in another area, and (since they require a complete path) how do they know that doing so will correct the imbalance. A curious question has been haunting scientist(including Steven Hawking for example) for a long time - how do other particles seem to "know" the position of all other particles? They have come up with the "holographic universe" theory - which if you study it, well it is more fantastic/ridiculous than anything, or any story from ANY religion - hell, any common fiction writer. Plus it really doesn't answer as many questions(even then very poorly) as it creates. It is just another "It is because it is - so just accept it" answer. "Scientific" theories like that would be more correctly categorized as religion.

Now creation IS possible - here's how. Supposing this matter has not always existed, and considering that physics (as we know it) only applies to matter(which includes energy - as we know it)(difficult concept for some. I know) - translation = physics are the laws governing the behavior of matter(/energy) - if you suppose there was once no matter(as we know it), then in turn you must assume there was once no physics(as we know it). It is therefore quite possible.

Also, if there is a God(as I fully believe there is), you could think of God (in simplified terms) as a computer programmer. He who writes the code makes the rules. Therefore it would be God who wrote the laws of physics, therefore dictating the behavior of the matter he is creating. Saying that creation would be impossible for God is like - saying that creating a game is impossible because the binary code of the game does not allow for creation or destruction of objects. Well needless to say the programmer has a little more say to that than does the program he created. Its not so hard to change a program, in fact you can do it in real time if you are willing/able to manipulate the ram it is running it(although certain drastic changes would take skill and exact timing to not crash it lol). Maybe you have a PlayStation, and maybe you own a Gameshark. The laws of the game may say that infinite HP is impossible, the Gameshark may have something else to say about that

Its not such a stretch to assume that a God who could create a universe could also manipulate it as well. Pretty much all of the "impossible miracles"(namely things considered impossible because they can't possibly happen due to random occurrence) in the Bible or (any book actually) are in fact possible if a God powerful enough to create a universe wanted it to happen. If God wanted to change the boiling point of water - I see know reason why it couldn't be done(not that I see any reason for God to want to do that lol).

Jeremy Knox wrote:Here is basically what science is beginning to find out: #1 The universe has no "end", no center and no edge. #2 The universe never "began", it has always been. Time doesn't exist. #3 Matter is only transformed from one form to another, it can't be destroyed or created. It just is.

Weird eh? As mortal creatures it boggles the mind to imagine that something never "began" and on whom time has no effect but that's how the universe works. But facts are facts. What have we ever seen that has "begun"? Answer me that, and think about your answer really really carefully

So... Science is beginning to find out what I figured out when I was 7-8 years old?! LOL - I hope not... All that is correct it's just the whole "science is beginning to find out" part that cracks me up - especially if it is true

Seriously though, all those conclusions are pretty obvious when you think about them.

1. Even if you have a limit as to where there is no matter(as we know it) yet, there is a lack of matter we like to call "vacuum." True vacuum is literally nothing - nothing at all - a complete absence of anything. The only limit of "nothing" is where "something" begins. Since everywhere that vacuum exist is in fact somewhere that matter can (but doesn't currently) exist, there is no limit to the potential size of the universe. The amount(mass) of matter that can potentially occupy that infinite space - is limited however.

2. Well if there was no creator, then yes the universe must have always existed in some form or another - but that raises alot of other problems - how/why does it exist etc etc - you are back to square one in explaining anything about it.

Time? It is a fictitious concept created by man to help us keep track of things - much like the Inch, the Liter, or "Horse Power" - none of these describe an object that exists. E=MC^2 works on a graph but that is about it. There is no such thing as time - therefore no "time travel" is possible. The only equivalent to "time travel" would be to put all matter in the state it was previously in at a particular point in "time" - and you wouldn't be "travelling" anywhere through "time" as much as your sub-atomic particles would be re-arranged into the state they where in at that point in "time." I'd be impressed if Science ever got to a point where that is possible - and if they ever pulled it off, then our universe would be in an infinite loop - LOL.

3. Nothing much to say there - it is obvious enough. However since you don't consider energy to be matter, and since matter can be transformed into energy, then by that logic matter can be destroyed and energy can be created - so you see the founding principle of "matter(/energy) can neither be created or destroyed" is that matter and energy are one and the same.

Seriously, I figured out as much as all that at 7-8 years old(lets just say that I wasn't exactly a jock at that point in my life -lol). If scientist are ONLY NOW figuring all that out, I'm deeply saddened as to the state of scientific advance. Then again it took a long time for most civilizations to figure out the concept of ZERO - so I shouldn't be so surprised. But that really shows just how advanced mankind's intelligence IS NOT - on the whole.

Quote:

jump in the water with a shark or jump in front of a bear and tell me wether you have domain over that creature.

(reloads shotgun - bear?... check)(reloads spear-gun - shark?... check) (reloads one of the millions of weapon variations man has made - just for the hell of it)LOL Last time I checked, the only creature we haven't killed is the creature we haven't even discovered yet or one that has yet to evolve into existence. I wouldn't say that makes us superior, but it does make us dominant.

Keeper - who said anything about God making us permanently dominant? Also - Dominance doesn't have to be 100% control either. A political party with 51% of the vote can still be the dominant party.

ME wrote:changing the subject

All in all, I can't say I trust any particular version of the Bible completely, or any part of it 100% - since I wasn't there when God was handing it out( I generally pray for meaning when I'm not so sure). There is massive potential for mistranslation(or even bad secretarial work in writing down what he says as he says it). The word "day" could mean something different to God, or maybe the word "day" is the wrong word to use entirely... could be better stated as "age," "day in age," etc etc or maybe even something completely un-translatable to any Latin-base language.

Also, I hate it when the books written purely by Jesus's disciples are taken "as the word of God" - noting that John(for example) was a man and therefore not infallible, therefore I'll take the books of John purely as "John's word" rather than as"God's word." That doesn't mean that John is wrong or anything - but simply being included in the Bible - doesn't actually mean that he is right either. I assume that it is probably accurate enough, but I won't place 100% certainty behind that assumption.

All in all I have no reason to think that there is no evolution. But I have even less reason to believe that evolution is completely random.




I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?